Legal Opinion

Dalenko v. Collier

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 5, 2008No. COA07-1404PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The trial court did not err in entering judgment out of session when plaintiff failed to timely object to such entry. The trial court did not err in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because a certification by an attorney required by a prior “gatekeeper order” does not insulate plaintiff from Rule 11 sanctions. Plaintiffs action was barred by collateral estoppel and by judicial immunity. The trial court did not err when it imposed Rule 11 sanctions on plaintiff without submitting this issue to a jury. The trial court did not err in deciding to award attorney’s fees as a sanction under Rule 11 of the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Burns v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Koufman v. KoufmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  4. Turner v. Duke UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  5. Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dalenko v. StephensDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2013
  2. Dalenko v. Peden General Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Grubbs v. GrubbsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
  4. Dalenko v. CollierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  5. First Protective Insurance Company v. RikeDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API